States Members’ remuneration: reconsideration of 2011 increase and repeal of Article 44 of the States of Jersey Law 2005 – second amendment.

STATES OF JERSEY

r

STATES MEMBERS' REMUNERATION: RECONSIDERATION OF 2011 INCREASE AND REPEAL OF

ARTICLE 44 OF THE STATES OF JERSEY LAW 2005 (P.127/2010) – SECOND AMENDMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 12th October 2010 by the Deputy of St. Mary

STATES GREFFE

2010   Price code: B  P.127 Amd.(2)

STATES MEMBERS' REMUNERATION: RECONSIDERATION OF 2011 INCREASE AND REPEAL OF ARTICLE 44 OF THE STATES OF JERSEY LAW 2005 (P.127/2010) – SECOND AMENDMENT

PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH (a) –

Delete the words "in light of current and projected economic circumstances".

DEPUTY OF ST. MARY

REPORT

The  States  Members'  Remuneration  Review  Body  already  works  to  Terms  of Reference  agreed  by  the  States  in  2003.  I  reproduce  the  Act  detailing  these  as reproduced in R.C.52/2004 at the Appendix.

Members will see that the States Members' Remuneration Review Body is duty bound to consider 4 specific factors (there are 3 sub-paragraphs detailing these, but sub- paragraph (i) contains 2 separate factors) in its deliberations.

One of these 4 specific factors is almost the same as Senator Shenton's phrase which I am suggesting should be deleted.

In addition, they must gather opinions in specific ways, and they must "take account of any other matters that the Body considers to be relevant".

Senator Shenton wants the Board to review the recommendation it made in R.93/2010 this year. I am not sure myself that there is intrinsic harm in asking an independent body to review its decision, though members will be aware that some would think that this is itself a step we should not be taking.

But  Senator  Shenton's  paragraph  (a)  does  not  just  send  a  message  to  the  States Members' Remuneration Review Body in asking them to review their decision. It seeks to tie their hands by asking the Board to carry out this review "in light of current and projected economic circumstances;" – to consider one factor only in carrying out this review, or to consider this factor as being above all other factors.

This is pointless, (a) because the Terms of Reference already include this factor, and (b)  because  the  Terms  of  Reference  already  specify  what  the  States  Members' Remuneration Review Body must take into account.

The first paragraph of the proposition, as it stands, is an attempt to steer the thinking processes of the States Members' Remuneration Review Body and would have a chilling effect on their independence.

I  urge  members  to  adopt  my  amendment  which  simplifies  the  proposition  and guarantees the independence of the States Members' Remuneration Review Body which we set up with good reason as being independent.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no financial or manpower implications.

Page - 4

P.127/2010 Amd.(2)

APPENDIX

R.C.52/2004, page 14

STATES MEMBERS REMUNERATION REVIEW BODY: ACT OF THE STATES

THE STATES adopting a proposition of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, referred to their Act dated 13th May 2003, in which they agreed that an independent States  Members  Remuneration  Review  Body,  comprising  persons  who  were  not members of the States, should be established, and –

agreed that the Terms of Reference of the Review Body should be as follows –

to  make  recommendations  to  the  Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee  on  the appropriate  level  of  remuneration  to  be  paid  to  elected  members  of  the  States, following  the  holding  of  public  hearings  and  the  receipt  of  oral  and  written submissions, including members of the States, having taken account of any other matters that the Body considered to be relevant, and having taken particular account, but not being bound by, the following matters –

1. the principle that the level of remuneration available to elected members should be sufficient to ensure that no person should be precluded from serving as a member of the States by reason of insufficient income and that all elected members should be able to enjoy a reasonable standard of living, so that the broadest spectrum of persons were able to serve as members of the Assembly;
2. the economic situation prevailing in Jersey at the time of determination and the budgetary considerations of the States of Jersey;
3. the States inflation target, if any, for the period under review,